The Supremes

[Dnaguy 11943]

13 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

He said AP History, not AP Geometry...you fucking lunatic! 

There is no AP Geometry

QED

Edited March 1 by Dnaguy

[YGIFS 19450]

And now you know who to thank for it.  

[Dnaguy 11943]

17 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

minority over majority rule  

21st century Christo-American apartheid?

[jimmyjazz 45898]

1 hour ago, Goofyboy said:

Let’s go with full immunity. That gives Biden immunity as long as he’s President. I’ll take dictator Biden over dictator Trump. Biden has his rivals killed, goes for Ice Cream in his Vette.

If SCOTUS is in the bag, and I'm starting to align with the thought that a few of them are, they're not going to rule on this prior to inauguration.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

They’re only temporary though and there has to be a legitimate argument

For these cocksuckers, a legitimate argument consists of “Because I said so.”

[BevoAbyss 2058]

4 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

fundamentally do not understand how the federalists society, fascists, conservative catholic bloc, and Crow disciples think that this leads to a better America.

Or maybe they don’t and they just want to hoard their billions. And their calculation is that they’ll be the ruling class / on the winning side of any civil conflict. It’s so dystopianly unAmerican 

With all due respect, I am not sure what is so hard to understand. Plus, I just don't get all the confusion in Surly over what is going down in America. Right before our eyes. (Guess it's because my family did not go to Sunday School and church.)

The Billionaires and Bible-thumpers have long embraced in America, at least since the Communist Revolution. 

-- Billionaires don't want no Commies/Socialists snatching their money and the Bible-thumpers don't want no Atheists attacking their fact-free belief in God. Of course, the rich and religious have schemed together for millennia to maintain power.

-- The Billionaires believe Wall Street and the stock market should rule America and the Bible-thumpers believe God and the Church should rule America .... and thus they both believe they have financial and divine rights to rule everyone else.

-- Corporations and billionaires will let fascism and theocracy reign supreme if it ensures profits and wealth. The Bible-thumpers want to rule a medieval America, which is the true direction of their belief system. The goal is a theocracy taking America backward by the centuries. Dominate women, LGBTQIA, and people of color first, then the rule the educators, doctors, scientists, atheists....

-- To control the masses and maintain power, the Billionaires and Bible-thumpers sell two related dreams — 1) you can get rich in this life and 2) you can live forever in the afterlife. But ya gotta believe in us! Trust us!

It's a seductive brew, but 100% toxic. This toxic brew is leading directly to a fascist theocracy. The Bible-thumpers have been saying it is the goal for decades.

What's not to understand?

Edited March 1 by BevoAbyss

['stache 21802]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

For these cocksuckers, a legitimate argument consists of “Because I said so.”

Well yeah, but even if Alito had gone rogue it could be overturned by the court pretty quickly. Alito didn’t join Thomas in his lone dissent in one of the Jan. 6 cases. In this situation, if Alito had conspired with Powell to stop certification, I guarantee it would have been submitted and the injunction issued. The fact that it didn’t happen just tells me Powell is full of shit as usual. They never seriously considered asking Alito to stop certification.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

[Stilicho 1397]

I just don't see how you justify the delay knowing what the greater public reaction is going to be. 

Roberts can spout about protecting the integrity of the Court all he wants; it stretches beyond credibility that the timing was happenstance.

Has the Court been corrupt in the past? Absolutely. Sickeningly so (looking your way Buck v. Bell, Citizens Utd, etc), but this feels like even a step beyond.

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

3 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

With all due respect, I am not sure what is so hard to understand. Plus, I just don't get all the confusion in Surly over what is going down in America. Right before our eyes. (Guess it's because my family did not go to Sunday School and church.)

The Billionaires and Bible-thumpers have long embraced in America, at least since the Communist Revolution. 

-- Billionaires don't want no Commies/Socialists snatching their money and the Bible-thumpers don't want no Atheists attacking their fact-free belief in God. Of course, the rich and religious have schemed together for millennia to maintain power.

-- The Billionaires believe Wall Street and the stock market should rule America and the Bible-thumpers believe God and the Church should rule America .... and thus they both believe they have financial and divine rights to rule everyone else.

-- Corporations and billionaires will let fascism and theocracy reign supreme if it ensures profits and wealth. The Bible-thumpers want to rule a medieval America, which is the true direction of their belief system. The goal is a theocracy taking America backward by the centuries. Dominate women, LGBTQIA, and people of color first, then the rule the educators, doctors, scientists, atheists....

-- To control the masses and maintain power, the Billionaires and Bible-thumpers sell two related dreams — 1) you can get rich in this life and 2) you can live forever in the afterlife. But ya gotta believe in us! Trust us!

It's a seductive brew, but 100% toxic. This toxic brew is leading directly to a fascist theocracy. The Bible-thumpers have been saying it is the goal for decades.

What's not to understand?

Happy Friday!

[The Original Greaser Bob 2829]

In France they call them Les Supremes.

[David Dennison 18854]

2 hours ago, Stilicho said:

I just don't see how you justify the delay knowing what the greater public reaction is going to be. 

Roberts can spout about protecting the integrity of the Court all he wants; it stretches beyond credibility that the timing was happenstance.

Has the Court been corrupt in the past? Absolutely. Sickeningly so (looking your way Buck v. Bell, Citizens Utd, etc), but this feels like even a step beyond.

Remember, we've been fed the myth of American exceptionalism since birth, so it's hard for most Americans to process the truth that their country isn't all that unique when it comes to dysfunctional politics.

Edited March 1 by David Dennison

[Rimbo 25919]

[Ben Tobin 374]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:02 PM, The Original Greaser Bob said:

In France they call them Les Supremes.

Because of the metric system?

[F250 28767]

54 minutes ago, Ben Tobin said:

Because of the metric system?

 

[Nivek 16923]

It’s this but with a coating of christofascism. They call it “dominionism” but it’s simple. Their god knows what’s best for everyone and they are conduits to that god. The money is a happy side effect of working for god.

They don’t actually believe in god. How fucking gullible are you?

[Chad Fuck 17669]

12 hours ago, Nivek said:

They don’t actually believe in god. How fucking gullible are you?

Where did I say they believe in god?  

 

[tx ind 7012]

On 3/1/2024 at 8:27 AM, Chad Fuck said:

It’s this but with a coating of christofascism. They call it “dominionism” but it’s simple. Their god knows what’s best for everyone and they are conduits to that god. The money is a happy side effect of working for god.

 

On 3/1/2024 at 11:32 AM, BevoAbyss said:

-- To control the masses and maintain power, the Billionaires and Bible-thumpers sell two related dreams — 1) you can get rich in this life and 2) you can live forever in the afterlife. But ya gotta believe in us! Trust us!

 

 

[Satchel 6938]

5 hours ago, tx ind said:

 

 

 

Can we make a distinction between Bible thumpers and Christ followers?

[HRSchenker 2268]

Trump v Anderson is live. Colorado Supreme Court opinion reversed in unanimous decision. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson write to concur in the judgment 

Edited March 4 by HRSchenker

[Biff Tannen 45673]

This was more or less expected right?

[DDD Dad 14332]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This was more or less expected right?

Based on the oral arguments, yes.

[Brisketexan 105095]

Just read the opinion.  It's both good and bad.  

Good: it reached the correct ultimate result, based on some pretty sound reasoning.  That reasoning being that Section 3 of the 14th amendment did not grant to individual states the ability to enforce Section 3 against candidates for FEDERAL office.  It granted states the power to do so re state office, but not federal.  The power to apply Section 3 to candidates for federal office lies solely with the federal government.

Bad: the opinion unnecessarily BEYOND what is stated above, and states an unnecessarily proscriptive interpretation of Article 5, which grants Congress the power to to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment.  The majority (read: all the conservatives except ACB) lays out a detailed set of requirements for such legislation, putting restrictions and requirements in place that did not need to be there.  To her credit ACB's concurrence said that 1) she agreed with the outcome, 2) because Section 3 didn't grant any power to the states, and that's where the opinion should have ended -- leave out the pointless dicta.  The 3 liberal justices voiced a similar concern, in more detail.

What the whole saga really demonstrates is that even our post-Civil War amendments don't sufficiently account for the problem of what to do if the insurrectionists control Congress...which is the present case.  The weakness is that the 14th amendment lets the fox guard the henhouse in that circumstance.  We are in the middle of another Civil War, it's just that few people have actually acknowledged it.

[Zonahorn 8079]

It's official, the only way to prevent an authoritarian overthrow of our government is for the American voters to protect it. I think I'm gonna be sick.

[wildcat09 29349]

It’s not sound reasoning. States already had the power under the constitution to administer the federal aspects of their elections. They’ve always been able to, for example, exclude a federal candidate from the ballot because they didn’t meet the minimum age requirement.

[Dutchrudder 11137]

On 3/1/2024 at 9:07 AM, Goofyboy said:

Let’s go with full immunity. That gives Biden immunity as long as he’s President. I’ll take dictator Biden over dictator Trump. Biden has his rivals killed, goes for Ice Cream in his Vette.

He could be like that guy in Lethal Weapon doing whatever he wants and claiming "Diplomatic Immunity!"

Cuts in front of a long line at TCBY, "Presidential Immunity!"

Sick his pet alligator on a Ted Cruz to rough him up, "Presidential Immunity!"

Walks into Congress mid-session and takes a shit on the floor, "Presidential Immunity!"

Runs over Clarence Thomas with a Winnebago, "Presidential Immunity!"

[Brisketexan 105095]

It’s not sound reasoning. States already had the power under the constitution to administer the federal aspects of their elections. They’ve always been able to, for example, exclude a federal candidate from the ballot because they didn’t meet the minimum age requirement.

The logic is there on the broad administration of elections question, but when you drill down to look at the authority on how states can administer the specific exclusion found in sec 3 of the 14th amendment, the precedent from the period after enactment is pretty on-point for the proposition that states applied it to elections for state office, and the feds had the power to apply it to federal offices. The answer to the “how did this work in its original context?” question strongly points to this outcome.
And yes, it’s a hole/weakness in our system.
If we survive the Trump period, it’s something that a future government will need to try to address. Of course, legislative fixes are a lot like military strategy: you spend all of your energy gearing up to fight the previous war, not the future one you just didn’t see coming. We’re seeing that in real-time. We have laws and such addressing insurrection, but they are built to address the situation after the Civil War, not the rise of a popular autocrat. Shit, our founding fathers said that impeachment was the failsafe…but our failsafe has failed.

[jimmyjazz 45898]

It's interesting how Republicans advocate for Federal powers when convenient and similarly deny them when convenient (see for instance Abbott's bullshit border control claims).

[wildcat09 29349]

1. It is literally absurd to read a Constitutional provision that affirmatively gives Congress the power to expunge a disqualification by a 2/3rds vote, but says nothing about any Congressional power to impose the disqualification in the first place, as requiring Congress to act to impose the disqualification. 

2. This "states have no power here, only Congress does" in this case is completely at odds structurally with all of this court's other decisions regarding voting/elections and the 14th Amendment.

[Js1 85310]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's interesting how Republicans advocate for Federal powers when convenient and similarly deny them when convenient (see for instance Abbott's bullshit border control claims).

And by interesting, you mean extremely frustrating, hypocritical and on brand 

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:54 AM, Dahobbs said:

If it really was going all out for him, it would have taken the appeal earlier and have granted him immunity by now. 

Right. And why did Putin put Navalny in prison and not just execute him by firing squad as soon as he was arrested? Why didn’t he do the same to Prigozhin after his failed coup attempt?

[gmr548 16576]

On 3/1/2024 at 6:58 AM, Dnaguy said:

I fundamentally do not understand how the federalists society, fascists, conservative catholic bloc, and Crow disciples think that this leads to a better America.

At its establishment, America was an oligarchy of wealthy, white, Christian men and very few, if any of them intended for it to become anything beyond that. They believe in that vision.

[Underdog 28611]

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

He could be like that guy in Lethal Weapon doing whatever he wants and claiming "Diplomatic Immunity!"

Cuts in front of a long line at TCBY, "Presidential Immunity!"

Sick his pet alligator on a Ted Cruz to rough him up, "Presidential Immunity!"

Walks into Congress mid-session and takes a shit on the floor, "Presidential Immunity!"

Runs over Clarence Thomas with a Winnebago, "Presidential Immunity!"

Try that shit at Franklin and he’ll get shot. 

[Dutchrudder 11137]

7 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Try that shit at Franklin and he’ll get shot. 

[BHMCruiser 1813]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Just read the opinion.  It's both good and bad.  

Good: it reached the correct ultimate result, based on some pretty sound reasoning.  That reasoning being that Section 3 of the 14th amendment did not grant to individual states the ability to enforce Section 3 against candidates for FEDERAL office.  It granted states the power to do so re state office, but not federal.  The power to apply Section 3 to candidates for federal office lies solely with the federal government.

Bad: the opinion unnecessarily BEYOND what is stated above, and states an unnecessarily proscriptive interpretation of Article 5, which grants Congress the power to to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment.  The majority (read: all the conservatives except ACB) lays out a detailed set of requirements for such legislation, putting restrictions and requirements in place that did not need to be there.  To her credit ACB's concurrence said that 1) she agreed with the outcome, 2) because Section 3 didn't grant any power to the states, and that's where the opinion should have ended -- leave out the pointless dicta.  The 3 liberal justices voiced a similar concern, in more detail.

What the whole saga really demonstrates is that even our post-Civil War amendments don't sufficiently account for the problem of what to do if the insurrectionists control Congress...which is the present case.  The weakness is that the 14th amendment lets the fox guard the henhouse in that circumstance.  We are in the middle of another Civil War, it's just that few people have actually acknowledged it.

I seldom agree with you but in this case agree entirely with your analysis up until your last paragraph. The four concurring justices are correct that the Court should never have reached the issues decided in 1A of the opinion.

[Brisketexan 105095]

23 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I seldom agree with you but in this case agree entirely with your analysis up until your last paragraph. The four concurring justices are correct that the Court should never have reached the issues decided in 1A of the opinion.

We don't disagree -- perhaps my last para was inartful/incomplete.  IF the conclusion is that the execution of sec. 3 of the 14th is up to Congress, then we are in this dilemma.  And the majority decided that it is.  Thus, here we are.

[TexasEd 8066]

On 3/1/2024 at 9:44 AM, Dnaguy said:

There is no AP Geometry

QED

I need something to laugh at today.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

2013: "Congress has overstepped their authority in enforcing the 14th Amendment"

2024: "Congress is the only body that can enforce the 14th Amendment" 

[Dnaguy 11943]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

2013: "Congress has overstepped their authority in enforcing the 14th Amendment"

2024: "Congress is the only body that can enforce the 14th Amendment" 

[David Dennison 18854]

At what point to states start ignoring the Supreme Court?

[wildcat09 29349]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At what point to states start ignoring the Supreme Court?

Texas already is.

[Captainant 27653]

[956 Worldwide 34705]

I see that the court ruled 9-0 and that is probably the correct legal decision. 
 

I just don’t understand why.  Why does the left wing play this game of law?  We have years of horrible and damaging 5-4 opinions where the concurring opinion reads something like:

”The case before the court goes at the heart of Habeas corpus and because this we must consult stare decisis with regards to the prima nocte nature of the matter before this court.  A close examination de novo in camera and ad litem means we must rule, prima facie, to issue certiorari that the shitlibs should lick my taint.” 
 
What are we even doing here? 

[David Dennison 18854]

What would happen if Colorado left him off the ballot anyway?

[wildcat09 29349]

Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot).  

If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. 

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What would happen if Colorado left him off the ballot anyway?

A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.

['stache 21802]

As expected the liberal justices apply the law and only the righties get to make it up as they go.

[956 Worldwide 34705]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

As expected the liberal justices apply the law and only the righties get to make it up as they go.

I feel like I’m going nuts here. It’s like you show up to a track meet and one guy is revving up his dirt bike. 
 

Gorsuch: The rules don’t say anything about dirt bikes. 

Roberts: Lots of people in this crowd want to see this guy ride a dirt bike and we can’t disappoint them and undermine their faith in this competition. 

Alito: The ancient Greeks invented track and there were no dirt bikes then, so we must not presume that they would have banned them. 

Thomas: The dirt bike manufacturer gave me an R.V. and lets me stay at his home on St. Croix.

Sotomayor: Well I guess Gorsuch has a point, the words “dirt bike” aren’t in the rules…..

[wildcat09 29349]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

As expected the liberal justices apply the law and only the righties get to make it up as they go.

The thing is, even they didn’t really apply the law here. They just surrendered to the conservatives’ opportunistic distortion of the law for what is probably a mix of policy and strategic reasons.

[Gap03 3304]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What would happen if Colorado left him off the ballot anyway?

I mean, there IS plenty of Supreme Court voting law precedent for the "we don't think CO should have done this, but we can't possibly expect CO to print new ballots at this point, soooooo maybe next election ..." approach, right? So maybe CO just says, "Sorry, folks, ballots already printed ..."

[Captainant 27653]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The thing is, even they didn’t really apply the law here. They just surrendered to the conservatives’ opportunistic distortion of the law for what is probably a mix of policy and strategic reasons.

And that's how you let the fascists creep their way into incrementally more and more power. You simply let them fucking take it.